Library Redevelopment

[Frank George]

I see it has been cancelled. What exactly are the facts/explanations?

[Guest]

I see it has been cancelled. What exactly are the facts/explanations?

Rampant Richardson is on a mission to piss off every single person at the university?

I don't know, just a suggestion.

[kyra]

Colleagues

As I am sure you are all aware, the redevelopment of our Main Library has been a central theme and key priority in our Academic, Estates and Development strategies for the past several years.

As the hub of academic life, the Library is at the core of who we are and what we do. It ought to reflect our regard for scholarship, our commitment to excellence, our standing as a university, and our shared ambition to place study and scholarship at the heart of a truly world class university.

A library should be judged by the strength and breadth of its collections and the access to them it offers . A good library is one that gets these fundamentals right.

Since 2005 the University has wrestled with, consulted upon, refined and deferred final judgment upon a number of redevelopment proposals. These have ranged from a £25 million extension to the more recent plan for a £46 million wraparound refurbishment. This plan would give us more and better study space and would place our special collections in the heart of the library in a setting they deserve.

These proposals all offered their own unique benefits and challenges. They all however have two things in common – each was conceived and elaborated before the effects of the global economic downturn became fully and locally apparent and each tended to overlook the importance of investing in our collections.

Over the last 18 months, the landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom has changed markedly. From a position of relative buoyancy and growth, universities are now struggling to manage deep cuts in funding and the certainty of more to follow. Many are making staff redundant, or closing departments. In St Andrews, these are scenarios which we are determined to avoid if at all possible.

At the same time, the growth of technology has had a major impact on the way students and scholars use libraries. Moreover, the commissioning of the New Medical School and associated moves will have the effect of moving 1000 of our undergraduates to the North Haugh. There are real debates to be had about the merits of centralised library provision versus a decentralised model and about how best to create a library that can adapt to the breathtaking pace of technological change in how we gain access to teaching and research materials.

In the light of the fiscal and planning uncertainty we face, it is my view and that of my Principal’s Office colleagues that we cannot at this point commit the institution to spending £46 million on refurbishing the fabric of our central Library.

We hold equally firmly to the view that we cannot any longer delay taking fundamental action to improve our existing Library facilities and collections, notwithstanding the pressures of recession. Nor should we lose sight of the ambition which informed our original redevelopment vision.

Subject to final approval by Court, we therefore intend to bring forward work on the library and begin in June 2011 on an interim programme of far-reaching improvements which will renovate the Library environment, expand our collections and provide additional study spaces.

This programme will represent an investment of £14 million in total. Some £3 million is currently being invested in a new Library Store. A further £7 million will be committed to modernise the Library environment. We will renew furniture, fixtures, carpet, lighting, heating and the entrance-way. IT Services will vacate premises in nearby Butts Wynd and these will be renovated to provide additional study spaces. We will investigate creating additional work and study spaces elsewhere in town and on the North Haugh.

200 new study spaces will be created by September 2012 and a total of 600 by 2014, the date by which our original redevelopment scheme was due to conclude.

At least as importantly, we will commit an additional £4 million over four years to expand our Library collection, something which earlier iterations of redevelopment proposals had largely ignored.

Our aim is to have the major part of these works complete by September 2012, and to conduct renovations in a phased way which will minimise impact upon students and staff.

I believe that this programme will in itself deliver a modern, refreshed library environment, additional study space and a much improved collection in St Andrews. Crucially however, it should not be seen as a one in a generation event. It is an interim measure, a step along the way to the wider vision of a reinvented and wholly rejuvenated Main Library.

We will not lose sight of that vision and we will do everything we can to ensure it is realized. Our fundraising teams in Development will continue to seek support and donor involvement for the bigger picture as we move towards and through our 600th anniversary.

I would like to thank you all for your patience, contribution and engagement with our Library redevelopment proposals over the past few years. I know that this has been a long and challenging process and there have been several changes of direction and emphasis along the way.

I fully acknowledge how disappointing it is for all of us to have to delay the realization of our ambition to have a library truly worthy of this great university. I wish I were writing to you with a different message. I would not be writing, however, if I were not convinced that this plan is the best available means, within the severe financial constraints we face, to respond expeditiously and decisively to legitimate student complaints of overcrowding and staff complaints of inadequate collections.

I hope that now the University is taking decisive action rapidly to improve the Library and its collections you will all continue to support and contribute your energies and time to this enormously important project.

Louise Richardson
Principal and Vice-Chancellor

[DACrowe]

Which on the face of it sounds not unreasonable. But if you had to prioritise something, why on earth focus on the carpets, lighting and heating?

[Georgina]

We're getting together a coherant picture of what has happened.

Put simply - the university had committed to a £46m project, and progressed significantly through the design and planning stages. This project would create study space per student on par with University of Oxford, create integrated and varied study spaces (ie a quiet zone, reading rooms, group study spaces, integrated technology and work space), address structural problems, create more space through extending to the edge of the cantelevers, give more access to Special Collections to make them usable by students, create more space for shelving for extended collections (we all want new books, but there is on current space for them).

The u-turn this week implies that this vision will be replaced with the £7m refurbishment to address issues such as lighting and windows, but as I said, the details are quite light.

[macgamer]

How disappointing. Although I agree with the Principal, avoiding job losses amongst teaching staff should be the priority given the current economic climate.

But if you had to prioritise something, why on earth focus on the carpets, lighting and heating?

Well the carpets, lighting and heating make the Main Library look and feel like a 1970s multi-storey carpark with windows and books. The carpet is sickeningly yellow, the lighting is undiffused and certainly made eyestrain more frequent for me and the heating is very uneven.

Appearences are quite important. For a University which claims to be the best in Scotland, the Main Library is quite simply a disgrace. Smartening the place up to make an inadequate library look less inadequate seems to be the crux of the plan.

[Seriously?]

Here is the link to the facebook event about it for anyone who wants to take part in the emailing process or organise something bigger. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=1 ... 57&index=1

[DACrowe]

Although I agree with the Principal, avoiding job losses amongst teaching staff should be the priority given the current economic climate.

I'm not sure to what extent I agree (not being privy to the details of the University's finances and fundraising) but it's at least understandable. Clearly they could have been a bit more forward with the Student Association on this matter though.

Smartening the place up to make an inadequate library look less inadequate seems to be the crux of the plan.

I guess my aesthetic tastes are different than most. My understanding was that the main problems with the library were (a) availability of study space (this being partly addressed by the rearrangement of facilities in the IT suite; could perhaps also be addressed by changes to the booking system. I have a hard time accepting that people who live on Market Street (or like me, reasonably close to the town centre) have the same need for space in the library as those who live out in the 'badlands'), (b) the library stock and therefore stack size (more books need more space; key texts should have multiple copies. The current system disadvantages students with less money) and (c) the accessibility of the library (it isn't 24 hours). I never saw any reason for thinking that lighting was an issue but then again my position on lighting is if it works it's good enough. From the sounds of it they're putting off the redevelopment so as to save staff redundancies which would presumably cut into (c) and are trying to address (a) and (b) as best they can without a major redevelopment. That said, is the carpet really so bad that you'd rather that got replaced than several hundred additional books were purchased?

@Georgina et al - Some pressure should be put to try and make the University commit to a firm agreement if the redevelopment doesn't go ahead now. Something like 'if the university meets its fund-raising targets for 5 years it will guarantee a more wholesale redevelopment takes place'. The worry is, particularly if it's tarting the place up, that they will use the money being spent now as an excuse to push a more major redevelopment down the river indefinitely.

How has the University actually conducted itself? It's fair enough that economic circumstances might make them have to change plans, however if they have given firm commitments to the SA that certain things will happen you'd like to think there was a more consultative decision made than just to announce it had changed its mind. Andrew describes the change as having been 'presented as a fait accompli'. Whatever happens with the redevelopment plans you (the collective 'you' of yourself, Andrew, Owen and Sienna) should make it clear to them that this isn't on. The University cannot conduct business in a manner predicated on the presumption that the Student Association is going to be unreasonable and so it will simply make major decisions about plans affecting student welfare without reference to them.

[RedCelt69]

I guess my aesthetic tastes are different than most.

I don't recall ever noticing bad decor in the library. Decoration isn't what a library is meant to be about. I guess I've always been too busy concentrating on the contents of the bound paper things with squiggly lines in them to care that much about the carpet.

The aesthetic changes seem to be part of a bigger plan - associated with the whole £4m Principal's residence (and the domino effect) revamp - to make the university more saleable to prospective students/investors. Functionality seems to be less of an issue.

More study spaces would be good and, yes, it would be great if those who live locally could use their own accomodation if it is nearby. Living in Cupar, study space is a premium issue for me. I tend to avoid the main library and find a spot in the departmental libraries, which (sadly) often lack the required material for each module.

[Frank]

I suspect there could actually be a sensible argument in 'tarting up' the library. Except that there's a difference between a superficial change (throw a bit of money at it, change the rugs) and a guided (I suspect 'ergonomic' would be the most vaguely appropriate word).

However, my knowledge of architecture, interior design and 'feng shui' (nonsense in the guise of 'this is actually real') is minimal and so I can't tell whether the University is making a sensible decision (a facelift could indeed mitigate the unfortunate effect of a badly decorated library [not everyone can ignore the glare, as per Macgamer's testimony]) or whether they're throwing money at something to sweep it under the (new) carpet and then use this expenditure as a get-out card later. Or believing they're doing the former, but doing it badly/misguidedly/stupidly and ending up with the latter.

(I.e. Hanlon's Razor, DAC's supposition could be the result, not the intention.)

So the questions remain:
- Could/should the library just be 'left alone' and permitted an 11 million 'expansion of collection and maintenance' investment?
- Could/should we leave it alone without any additional money 'til such a time it can be done properly?
- Could/should the current proposal be made to actually meet our needs?

Well, that sort of thing. On the face of it, I'm inclined to trust the Principal's Office and ignore the petitioners. Sorry, ignore the occupators.

But then I don't like ignoring folks. Which brings me back to the point: Sinner, tell me what to think!

[Hennessy]

The place is pretty soporific. I think carpets and decor are essential if you want to get the most out of it. At the moment going inside it is like visiting my local council offices, also built in the glorious period when highly-educated architects liberally assumed the ruthless pursuit of function over form would be enlightening for the rest of us epsilon minus'. I find it depressing to work in and frequently too crowded. For a research library it was crap, and saying that has never been controversial in all the four years I've been at St Andrews, nor has it been truer that, as we head for our 600th anniversary, the library (along with our crumbling union) is one of the University's most obvious liabilities.

Still, 46m was an astronomic sum. I'd hope for that they'd tear the place down and give us a building that invites us in rather than one that seems to stare sullenly at the surrounding buildings, determined to be user-unfriendly and ugly. £7m will do, if Dr Richardson doesn't decide in a couple of months to nab that too and do up the garden to her Victorian mansion. Here's to hoping they still manage to find some of the remaining £39 and use it to procure books rather than redundant paper mills a couple of miles outside town.

[Angry Guest]

Oxford has the Bodleian.

We have the Short Loan box.

Enough said. 45 mil is just the beginning of what needs to be done!

[Guest]

Oh come on every one for goodness sake! The REALLY IMPORTANT THING HERE is that Ms the-IRA-tried-to-recruit-me-you-know-have-I-ever-mentioned-that Richardson has got a nice comfortable residence and gets to float around in borrowed jewels and designer gear making a complete tit of herself and getting her face in the papers.

What the hell does a library matter in a university? What makes any student think this is about them when it's all about what our esteemed Principal wants?

Get your priorities right, Ms Richardson did.

[Ian Sutherland]

I think the library needs a certain amount of refurbishment to furnishings and equipment. The lights in some areas have a really annoying buzz. And some of the tables are too high to use a laptop comfortably. The ventilation/heating system could also be made much quieter. Some more power points would be good too. I don't think replacement of carpets needs to be a priority.

The library collection obviously needs to be expanded. Space seems to be at a premium, but some could be freed up by various methods. A lot of older books now in the public domain are now available on archive.org or similar sites, so some of the less-used books available there could also be moved to storage or sold. Also, a lot of the big journals have digitized all their back issues and these are now available online. So the bound copies of the journals could, at the very least, be moved into storage out of town somewhere. I do appreciate that disposing of them might be a step too far. The library's journal subscriptions also need to be reviewed. (As a matter of interest, can anyone suggest which department asked the library to subscribe to Country Life magazine?)

An interesting fact in light of the lack of library space: When the new(-ish) computer science building was being planned (2003 or thereabouts), there was a suggestion that it include a CS departmental library to free up space in the library in the physics building (shared by physics, maths, and CS). Apparently this was vetoed at a high level in the university, on the grounds that "computer scientists don't use books". (I heard this account of events from Ron Morrison, former head of CS, so it's probably accurate. Needless to say, Morrison was not impressed by that decision.) Does the new medical sciences building contain library space? (Last time I was in St Andrews, it wasn't open yet.)

[Georgina]

The Students' Association response to the university's proposals can be found here - http://www.yourunion.net/news/index.php ... _id=157543

Email the principal (and copy in dorep@st-andrews.ac.uk) before the meeting tomorrow morning. We will be sending an update with news tomorrow.

[macgamer]

I remember that the former Head Librarian of St Andrews, Jon Purcell left for Durham last year (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/itsold/news ... rcell.html), which has a very similar library to St Andrews (similar size and multi-storey carpark design).

Regard:

Strangely familar.

However the Durham library is having millions (£48m - strangely familar...) spent on it and an entire new wing added. Essentially doing what St Andrews planned to do:
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Durh ... 5647633.jp
http://www.dur.ac.uk/durham.project/gateway/

I wonder whether even then Mr Purcell new that St Andrews wasn't going to carry out the plans and saw an opportunity to move to a library which has a bright future?

[Archie]

Just a quick recap of the Principal's actions since she joined St A.

Alienate the R&A? Check.

Refuse the KK Club use of University property on the grounds of elitism and sexism? Check.

Refuse the Lumsden Club use of University property on the grounds of elitism and sexism? Oh gosh, NO.

Slammed home her claim to fame ad nauseum that the IRA tried to recruit her? Check.

Reclaimed the old Principal's residence forcing several departments to relocate? Check.

Spent/wasted over £1m of the University's money tarting up said residence? Check.

Given a disgraceful and frankly disgusting interview stating her hatred of the English? Check.

Pissed about with the Library plans and told other people that the proposed plan wasn't going ahead before she bothered to tell the student reps or the rest of the students? Oh big fat check there.


Quite frankly it doesn't take a genius to see that our esteemed Principal seems to be hell bent on bringing the University of St Andrews to its elitist knees before swanning off and starting all over again somewhere else. I do hope someone, somewhere has the brains not to renew her contract when its up. She appears to be the sort of person who would be more comfortable somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester.

[Gilded Youth]

Just a quick recap of the Principal's actions since she joined St A.

Alienate the R&A? Check.
Refuse the KK Club use of University property on the grounds of elitism and sexism? Check.
Refuse the Lumsden Club use of University property on the grounds of elitism and sexism? Oh gosh, NO.
Slammed home her claim to fame ad nauseum that the IRA tried to recruit her? Check.
Reclaimed the old Principal's residence forcing several departments to relocate? Check.
Spent/wasted over £1m of the University's money tarting up said residence? Check.
Given a disgraceful and frankly disgusting interview stating her hatred of the English? Check.
Pissed about with the Library plans and told other people that the proposed plan wasn't going ahead before she bothered to tell the student reps or the rest of the students? Oh big fat check there.
...She appears to be the sort of person who would be more comfortable somewhere like Birmingham or Manchester.

Many alumni I have spoken to about the current issues have stated that they will not give a single penny to the university until such time as Louise Richardson resigns. My own personal opinion is that until we get the Irish/American bird out and put someone with a bit of respect for the university and its institutions in, the world will turn away from our beloved university. We should bring back Brian Lang.

Is there any way to force a principal to resign?

[DACrowe]

Slammed home her claim to fame ad nauseum that the IRA tried to recruit her? Check.

Her claim to fame is more that she's a notable expert on terrorism (which has been sort of a big topic for the past decade) and she massively improved both the reputation and finances of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

Reclaimed the old Principal's residence forcing several departments to relocate? Check.
Spent/wasted over £1m of the University's money tarting up said residence? Check.

As far as I understand it the two moves involved were already in the pipeline anyway. I've heard that the renovation of the residence was planned as well in advance of her taking on the role but in either event the word to use is definitely 'spent'.

Given a disgraceful and frankly disgusting interview stating her hatred of the English? Check.

I... don't think that's quite what it said. If anything it showed her disregard for the well-being of crocuses but that's hardly a crime.

Pissed about with the Library plans and told other people that the proposed plan wasn't going ahead before she bothered to tell the student reps or the rest of the students? Oh big fat check there.

Not exactly. She did tell the University Council and the Students Association but it's the telling which is the problem; she shouldn't really be declaring without reference to the other institutions which are supposed to be involved in decision making what is going to be happening.

Quite frankly it doesn't take a genius to see that our esteemed Principal seems to be hell bent on bringing the University of St Andrews to its elitist knees before swanning off and starting all over again somewhere else.

I think it's an open secret that she was tapped as a possible future President of Harvard following her success at the Radcliffe and her presence here is largely to showcase her abilities as the executive of a top-flight University. While you might very well think that her political handling of events leaves a lot to be desired, it certainly isn't in her own career interests to - as you put it - swan off somewhere else. She requires the continued success of the University as much as anyone and the only way her position might be salvageable without such success would be if she could point to a demonstrable effort directed against her and say 'well look, I could have done a good job but those awful British people forced me out before I could reform their backwards ways'.

[Ian Sutherland]

My own personal opinion is that until we get the Irish/American bird out and put someone with a bit of respect for the university and its institutions in, the world will turn away from our beloved university. We should bring back Brian Lang.

Oh, good god.

Maybe Richardson isn't a great principal. Maybe her priorities are wrong. Maybe she is just on an ego trip.

But even if all that is true, Lang was a damn sight worse. At least Richardson has some intellectual achievement to her name. Lang is a failed social anthropologist whose one talent is brown-nosing. Want a good laugh? Get Brian's Ph.D. thesis out of the Edinburgh University library. Want to see his talent for kissing... feet? Look in Hansard for the record of him in front of a parliamentary committee, wriggling out of his responsibility for the delays and overspends while he was Chief Executive at the British Library.

I don't yet know much about how Richardson is running things. I do know that Lang enjoyed his position more than his job -- he left that to David Corner until Corner retired. Lang was, frankly, lazy. My former Ph.D. supervisor said that when he was head of school, he knew he could always rely on Struther Arnott's advice and support. Any situation where he felt out of his depth or needed backup, he could pick up the phone and call Arnott and *knew* he would get support. When Lang took over in 2001, that support vanished. Lang simply didn't want to know.

For goodness' sake, don't think of Lang's time at St Andrews as some sort of golden age. The general opinion I've picked up from people who are still at St Andrews is that people feel that Richardson is an academic, is "one of us". Maybe that's wrong. But Lang had spent so much time in management that he certainly no longer understood academia. Remember his statement that the university was a business, when he was asked why academics attending conferences were charged more than tourists to stay in halls during the summer break?

I personally need more time to form a full impression of Richardson. But if you reject her, the cry should be bring back Arnott, not Lang. Hell, promote someone -- anyone -- from within the university before thinking of Lang.